"Just yesterday, my opponent called my position on fuel efficiency standards extreme," said Obama. "It doesn't seem extreme to me to want to build more fuel efficient cars. Maybe the steam engine is more his speed."

Obama further added that the new CAFE standards will allow U.S. drivers to fill up their gas tanks "half as often." But when the new rules were finalized Tuesday, Romney failed to see the benefit to driving citizens.

"Governor Romney opposes the extreme standards that President Obama has imposed, which will limit the choices available to American families," said Andrea Saul, Romney spokeswoman. "The president tells voters that his regulations will save them thousands of dollars at the pump, but always forgets to mention that the savings will be wiped out by having to pay thousands of dollars more upfront for unproven technology that they may not even want."

While some are clearly unhappy with the new standards, others are seeing added benefits. Honda, for example, was delighted to see that the standards provided extra credits for those selling natural gas-powered vehicles. Tesla also jumped on the CAFE bandwagon when it learned that it could sell any credits for surpassing the standards to companies that haven't.

The CAFE standards will raise the average fuel efficiency of cars and light trucks to 54.5 mpg by model year 2025. These new standards, which were created by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOTs) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), were based off of the Obama Administration's first standards raised average fuel efficiency to 35.5 mpg by 2016. It was intended for cars and light trucks during model years 2011-2016.

The 54.5 mpg CAFE standard aims to save consumers more than $1.7 trillion at the gas pump, cut U.S. oil consumption by 12 billion barrels, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6 billion metric tons over the course of the program, and encourage the adoption of autos like electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrids.

For one, among many, the billions put into Germany by the US to help rebuild the country after WW2. And Germany doesn't have to divert a ton of money to defense, since the US carries the burden.

Heck, we still partial prop-up the economy of Germany by having all those military bases and personnel there in country. It was sometime during the Clinton or Bush Admin there were talks about closing alot of those bases in Germany. The Germans were not happy, due to the hugh impact it would have had on their economy.

That magic of 70 years isn't quite as straight forward as you would want it to seem. Quite honestly Germany wouldnt' be where they are today if it wasn't for the help of the US.

Again, where did the money come from in the first place for the "massive public investment"?? From the private sector!! The market place, captalism.

Ahh the meeting in the middle crap. You don't meet people in the middle when their ideas are wrong to begin with.

Germany's infrastructure was dismantled during the Marshall Plan. Billions were taken OUT of Germany, industrial patents were stolen, their manufacturing and infrastructure fell to 50% of 1938 levels, and the population began to starve. The allies actually charged the Germans 7 billion a year as occupation costs.

Fair pay for Hitler's work in WW2 perhaps, but thats for another debate. Eventually, the attitude did soften, and its estimated that Germany received about 1 billion over the course of the Plan, but the cost to industry and economy were incalculable.

It only began to pick up for them again in the 50s, mainly due to the work of their Finance Minister at the time, the creation of the Deutsch mark, and by joining the European Coal and Steel Community.

You're right that the US military presence is important for many small towns in the south, due to the ancillary service industries that sprang up to support the bases. But to say its 'propping up' the economy in any significant way doesn't really hold water.

You seem to think Im anti-capitalism. I'm not. I think a lot of elements of capitalism are necessary. What is needed (and what works) is balance, because the problems arent black and white, theyre infinite shades of grey.